CYPRUS Trends and Developments Contributed by: Constantinos A Adamides, Scordis, Papapetrou & Co LLC
cant Company, noting that nothing was brought before the Court about the nature of the authori - sation granted by the Russian Applicant Com- pany to YM. Referring to the admission by the Russian Appli- cant Company that the registration of hundreds of companies with the same registered address constitutes a standard practice, the Court found that the present case falls into the category that Dicey identified: “in practice a real problem will normally only arise where the corporation’s busi- ness is alleged to be carried on by a representa- tive or agent, who is not an officer or employee of the corporation, and who may act as a rep- resentative or agent for other corporations in addition.” The Court found that the place of business at the Nicosia Address was not acquired with the purpose of establishing a place of business exclusively for the Russian Applicant Company and stated that there was no evidence in rela- tion to the rest of the factors set out in Adams, for example about the costs of any services that may have been rendered by the Corporate Ser- vice Provider Group to the Russian Applicant
Company or the extent of control by the Corpo- rate Service Provider Group on any decisions of the Russian Applicant Company, noting in this respect that the only evidence before the Court was a general statement made a by a Russian witness called by the Russian Applicant Compa- ny that the establishment of a place of business in Cyprus by the Russian Applicant Company was established “in order to represent some of its interests”. Nor could the service of a court document on the Russian Applicant Company at the Nicosia Address prove residence in Cyprus since such a service was duly made pursuant to Section 347(1) of Cap. 113 on the basis of which the Rus- sian Applicant Company provided an address for service of documents in Cyprus. As a result, the Court found that the Russian Applicant was not resident in any way in Cyprus (whether permanently or temporarily) for the pur- pose of Article 27 of the Treaty. The Court there- fore lacked any jurisdiction and the application was consequently dismissed with costs ordered against the Russian Applicant Company.
348 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook